Colin Pennington Esq and Charles Walker Esq v Metropolitan Borough of Wirral

After an application by the Appellants for an adjournment, and, after this has been refused by the Tribunal, and after the Opening Submissions had been made by the Respondents, Mr Pennington gave written notice to the Tribunal of his intention to withdraw his appeal. The Tribunal accepted this and invited Mr Pennington to ascertain Mr Walker's intentions. Subsequently, the Tribunal received Mr Walker's withdrawal of his appeal.

Accordingly, under Rule 12 of the Registered Homes Tribunal Rules 1994, both appeals are deemed to be dismissed. The effect of this is that the decision of the Respondents stands, which is that each Appellant is not a fit person to be concerned in carrying on a residential care home.

Application for an adjournment made on the first morning of the hearing.

The hearing was set down for two weeks. The Tribunal considered that it would be appropriate, given that one of the Appellants turned up for the hearing and made an application to adjourn on behalf of both Appellants, to record a brief summary as to why this was refused.

The Appellants' application

The Appellant, Mr Pennington, said that Mr. Walker was unable to attend the hearing and that he wished for it to be delayed. He said that Mr. Walker had been in pain the preceding week and on Friday (19th. June) he was in agony. He provided a letter signed by a local doctor. He said that much of his ill health was due to what was going on in his life at present.

He said that the livelihood of sixteen people depended on the running of the Home, and part of his own, and the entirety of Mr. Walker's, income was derived from the Home. He said that Mr. Walker was the single most important person to provide evidence End was the spokesman for the two of them. Due to Mr. Walker's ill health and the fact that Mr. Pennington was only a "sleeping partner" he was currently engaged in trying to sell the Home. The potential purchaser is Ms. Pennington's step- father who was a previous owner of the Home. However, he wanted to see out this appeal and clear both Appellants' names. The Respondents' response to the application

It was clear that this was a tactical manoeuvre to defer the evil day, probably with the intention o "being able to transfer the Home elsewhere as a going concern with intent to maximise its resale value. This application and the reasons for it were raised at 1650 on Friday -. 9th. June, and must be seen against a background of repeated attempts to delay the effects of cancellation by one means or another.

As to the "sick note" which was tendered, the first three lines appear on their face to be very carefully chosen words. The doctor does not say that he examined Mr. Walker, to the contrary, he says he was asked to inform the Tribunal. In any event, it is surprising that disabling conditions such as this have overtaken Mr. Walker so late in the day when all other attempts to buy time had failed. The notification of Intention to Cancel was issued on 30th. June 1997. There were delays to bring the matter before a Tribunal, some of them attributable to the Respondents. In April 1998 the hearing date of today was confirmed, but since that time there have been requests by telephone made by Mr Rawlinson of Cuff Roberts, the Appellants' then Solicitor, and by the Appellants personally, directed both to the Respondents' solicitors and to the Inspection Unit.

Requests have been made repeatedly that the Respondents should extend the time for closure to enable Mr Hill to be put in position. Most attempts to defer matters have been by telephone, the second-from-last attempt to put matters off being on 18th. June, when there -was a request to the Respondents to extend the time for closure in order to put Mr. Hill in place. The Tribunal will be aware from its study of the bundle of documents that there were building defects which needed to be remedied. The Appellants were suggesting that Mr. Hill be registered without such work being carried out, on an undertaking that it would be carried out if he were registered, and the Respondents had indicated that they could not accede to this request. The last attempt was during the early afternoon of Friday, by a telephone call from Cuff Roberts, reiterating the same request. Only after that, shortly before the office closed, was there the slightest suggestion that Mr. Walker was affected by illness and would be unable to attend on the Monday. All else having failed, the Respondents' view is that this attempt to defer alters by a different route lacks bona fides. In any event, the Respondents say that matters have continued for too long already from the date of cancellation. There are sixteen residents still in the Home and matters need to be brought to a conclusion.

Mr. and Mrs Pennington are both present. [Mrs. Pennington is the daughter of Mr. Walker]. The bundle of documents from the Appellants is signed in the name of Mr. Pennington, and this suggests it originated from him. If this is right it is difficult to follow the suggestion that Mr. Pennington is in ignorance. It suggests that he was very much involved in the preparation of the case and to suggest that he is unable to pursue his appel without Mr. Walker is false. In any event, Mr. Pennington is the joint registered proprietor and he should know that is happening in the Home. If he does not, that in itself is a matter of concern. The Respondents do not accept that the case cannot be handled fully by Mr. and Mrs. Pennington starting today.

The Appellant's response.

Mr. Pennington said that he put his name on the documents because he is in possession of a word processor and he does all the work on it. It is a petty little thing ; what does such a petty little thing matter ? Mr. Walker has arthritis. As to Mr. Pennington's involvement in the Home, that is rather silly. The Respondents would agree as they visit the Home quite frequently, that they have only met him there on a couple of occasions in ten years, and that his involvement in the Home is restricted to book- keeping and wages.

The Tribunal's decision

The Tribunal was unanimous is deciding not to adjourn, but to go ahead with the hearing. The Appellants failed to provide any credible evidence as to why it should be adjourned. It accepted the Respondents' submissions as to why it should go ahead.

Margaret Rutherford

Ken Coleman